Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Parental Rights Foundation (PRF) on July 12 filed a joint lawsuit challenging the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 as unconstitutional.
The recently enacted law allows children 11 and older to receive vaccinations at school without the knowledge or consent of a parent.
Under the new law, even if the parent previously submitted a written religious exemption statement, school officials may secretly administer vaccines to the child against the parents’ written directive.
The legal action by CHD and PRF included a motion for a temporary injunction to stop the District of Columbia from administering COVID vaccines to children without the parents’ knowledge or consent, until the case goes to trial and the merits of the case can be decided by a jury.
On Sept. 2, the court heard oral arguments for the motion for a temporary Injunction. During the hearing the court strongly inferred the case had legal merit, but the plaintiffs had not yet demonstrated “standing.”
The Supreme Court of the United States previously held under the U.S. Constitution, “to establish Article III standing an injury must be ‘concrete’, particularized, and actual or imminent.”
In other words, to sue, the plaintiff must be injured or the injury must be “imminent.”
In the D.C. lawsuit, the parents and children are in a legal catch-22. The children cannot be physically injured until the vaccine is injected — but the parents cannot successfully sue to stop the injection because the child has not yet been injured.
The one exception is if the plaintiffs can show that the injury is “imminent.” The standard of proof for risk of “imminent” injury is very high and very fact-specific.
The D. C. lawsuit was “dismissed without prejudice,” which means the lawsuit will be re-filed by Oct. 1, and additional facts and plaintiffs may be added in order to get over the “legal standing” hurdle.
CHD is looking for additional plaintiffs to add to the case. There are two things we need to show for standing:
- The child is being pressured to get the vaccine — either by school and/or by peer pressure.
- The child is verbalizing that he/she is going to defy the parents and get the shot.
The perfect plaintiff would be the parents of a child who got the first shot and is threatening to go get the second.
If you wish to be considered as an additional plaintiff, please contact CHD immediately. Time of the essence. The new complaint will be filed on or before Oct. 1.
To be a plaintiff in the case challenging the new law, the parent and child must meet the following requirements:
- The parent and child must be residents of the District of Columbia.
- The child must be between the ages of 11 and 18.
- The child must be eligible for enrollment in school in the District of Columbia.
- The child’s school may be public or private.
If you and your child meet these requirements and you wish to stand up for your constitutional rights and liberty, fill out the form below.